Vinay Yadav v. State) in Case Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6068 of 2021 Appellant :- Vinay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Office report dated 03.2.2022 shows that notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally but despite service of notice nor opposite party no.2 has engaged any counsel to represent her case nor filed any counter affidavit. Learned A.G.A. has already filed counter affidavit and same is on record. Under the circumstances, with the help and aid of learned A.G.A., the Court is proposing to decide this appeal on merits.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur while rejecting the Bail Application No.406 of 2021 (Vinay Yadav vs. State) in Case Crime No.288 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Line Bazar, District-Jaunpur. The appellant is in jail since 16.11.2021. Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecutrix herself lodged the present F.I.R. through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant and four others with the allegation that she has acquainted with the applicant since she was studying in Class-XII. The applicant has taken her to Agra on 18.6.2021 and from there, both of them reached to Lucknow. Applicant made a proposal for marrying her but the issue of her caste came as an obstacle in marriage. The victim remained in the company of applicant about ten days and both of them established physical relationship with each other. As per High School Certificate the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 07.07.1999, as such, on the date of incident she was fully grown up major girl. In her 164 statement the victim stated that she was in constant touch with the appellant on telephone and she liked him. Both of them remained together for a considerable period but on account of serious opposition made by the family members, the marriage could not be solemnized. During this period, they have established physical relationship. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix has declined to get her medically examined so as to establish the factum of rape upon her. It is only after the refusal made by the appellant, she lodged the present F.I.R. implicating him after fastening the alleged allegation. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits the prosecutrix is a mature girl and she understands the far-reaching repercussions of pre-marital sex with the person to whom she likes. The totality of the circumstances clearly indicates that the prosecutrix was in consensual relationship with the appellant. Moreover, there is no material on record to establish that she was subjected to physical assault by the appellant. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Let the appellant-Vinay Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused/appellant who belongs to a higher caste, after his release, may create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial and may extend allurement and threats to the informant, his family members as well as other witnesses, thus, it is directed that in such eventuality, all these complaints may be raised by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of complainant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 3.6.2022 M. Kumar Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR Date: 2022.06.06 11:01:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad